GitHub Webhooks MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource type (org vs repo) and action (list/create/update/delete), with no overlap. The org and repo scopes are clearly separated in both names and descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent pattern verb_scope_webhook (e.g., create_org_webhook, delete_repo_webhook). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is well-scoped for managing webhooks across two levels (org and repo). Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count is within the ideal range.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides full CRUD coverage for both organization and repository webhooks. There are no missing operations that would cause dead ends—list returns IDs needed for update/delete, so workflows are complete.
Average 3.4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on December 30, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It only says 'delete', which implies a destructive action, but it does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires specific permissions (e.g., admin access), or what happens to the webhook after deletion. This lack of context leaves important operational behavior unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for a simple delete operation, though it could have included behavioral context without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (three required parameters, no output schema), the description together with the schema provides a minimum viable context for invoking the tool. However, it lacks any mention of side effects or usage context relative to sibling webhook tools, making it slightly incomplete for agents needing broader operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents all three parameters (owner, repo, hook_id) with descriptions, giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'repository webhook', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_org_webhook by specifying 'repository', though it does so only through the resource name rather than explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_org_webhook. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or any scenario where this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create', which implies mutation, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, idempotency, overwrite behavior, or what response to expect. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no unnecessary words and is appropriately minimal for a tool that is otherwise well-documented by its schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-sentence description lacks context about behavior, usage scenarios, or outcomes. The rich schema covers parameters but does not compensate for missing behavioral and contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for most parameters (83% coverage), including nested config fields, so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a webhook for a specific repository' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (repository webhook). The qualifier 'specific repository' distinguishes it from sibling org-level webhook tools, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for repository webhooks only, nor does it reference other sibling tools like create_org_webhook for organization-level webhooks. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update', which mirrors the tool name, and does not mention whether updates are partial or full replacements, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, a nested config object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain update semantics (e.g., partial updates, required fields), return values, or usage context. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide the behavioral and contextual richness needed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 80%, and the schema itself provides descriptions for most parameters, including nested config properties. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('update'), the resource ('existing organization webhook'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list, create, delete, and the repo-specific webhook tools. The phrase 'organization webhook' aligns with the tool name and leaves no ambiguity about what is being updated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_org_webhook or update_repo_webhook. The description simply states what it does without any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'List all webhooks' which implies a complete list, but the schema includes page and per_page parameters, indicating pagination. This is not disclosed in the description, creating a potential misunderstanding about behavior. No annotations exist to fill this gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, direct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No fluff, and it immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Efficient and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a description that omits pagination behavior and return format, the tool is under-specified. Given the presence of sibling tools, a short note about org vs repo scope or pagination would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already provided. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters (e.g., what 'all' means in the context of pagination). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('webhooks') scoped to 'an organization'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_repo_webhooks' and create/update/delete operations, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description — it's the org-level listing counterpart to list_repo_webhooks. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so it falls short of clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only conveys that this is a mutation operation on an existing resource, but it does not describe side effects, required permissions, partial update semantics, or what happens if the webhook does not exist. The description adds little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence: 'Update an existing repository webhook.' Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the schema being fairly rich (6 parameters, nested config object), the description is minimal and does not provide behavioral context, return value expectations, or preconditions. For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to fully understand the operation's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents the parameters well. The description adds no extra parameter context, but since the schema covers it, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('repository webhook'), and the qualification ('existing'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, list, delete, and org-scoped webhook tools. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool to update an existing repository webhook, as opposed to creating a new one or managing org webhooks. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the webhook needing to exist. The guidance is only implied by the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. 'Delete' hints at destructiveness, but no mention of irreversibility, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, focused sentence with no filler. Action and resource are presented upfront with maximum efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks usage context and behavioral caveats. It explains the core action but leaves out important context an agent might need.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes both parameters (Organization name, Webhook ID to delete) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and clearly names the resource 'organization webhook', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_repo_webhook' and CRUD alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The resource name 'organization webhook' implies the target context, but there is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action and scope, but does not mention required permissions, response format, potential side effects, or whether existing webhooks are overwritten. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. There is no wasted wording or irrelevant detail, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 5 parameters with a nested config object, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more context. It clearly conveys the core purpose and scope but does not explain return values, default events, or any limitations. This is adequate but with visible gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (80%), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the webhook applies to all repositories, which is a scope clarification rather than parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a webhook for an organization', with the clarifying phrase 'applies to all repositories in the organization' that distinguishes it from repo-specific webhooks like create_repo_webhook. This is a clear, specific statement of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the tool is for org-wide webhooks affecting all repositories, which implicitly tells the agent when to use it versus repo-specific webhook tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., create_repo_webhook) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that the 'all webhooks' claim is qualified by pagination (page/per_page parameters), and it does not disclose response format, ordering, or any rate limits. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal added context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, effectively conveying the core action and target resource without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple list operation, but the description lacks essential context such as pagination behavior and return value structure. Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not fully explain what the caller can expect beyond 'all webhooks'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters (owner, repo, page, per_page).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks for a repository'), clearly identifying the tool's action and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_org_webhooks by explicitly specifying 'for a repository'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool is for listing repository webhooks, not organization webhooks (sibling list_org_webhooks) and not for creating/updating/deleting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-webhooks-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ajaychinthapalli/github-webhooks-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ajaychinthapalli/github-webhooks-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![github-webhooks-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ajaychinthapalli/github-webhooks-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ajaychinthapalli/github-webhooks-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ajaychinthapalli/github-webhooks-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server